Full Frame vs Crop? [Archive] - The Global Indian Photographer

Xavier

09-05-2009, 08:24 PM

I know that this is a controversial topic, but I would like to see a good discussion on this.

Is Full frame plain better than a Crop camera? What about wildlife and birding? Isn't an APSC camera better than a Full frame in this regard since you have a field of view of 640mm (600mm for Nikonians and Sony users) using a 400mm lens?

I know that crops can't really match the ffs in terms of dynamic range, wide angle coverage and DoF. But they're also at least 2-3 times more expensive than the cheapest FF. (No, I'm not talking about the Sony A-850 here)

Many sports photographers prefer the APSH sensor of the Canon EOS 1D MarkIII not only because of its 10fps frame rate but also because of the 1.3X crop due toh which they spend less time cropping hundreds of images on an event day. Would want the others to shed some light on this topic too. :)

KrishnenduKes

09-05-2009, 09:13 PM

Xavier

09-05-2009, 09:24 PM

Controversial Topic Approved

Now let me add fuel to the fire:

1. Nothing beats FF. Size of sensor is bigger.

2. APS-C sensor does NOT give you reach. It is a smaller format It is NOT a 35mm format that ex-film users are used to. Which means that 200mm remains 200mm with a crop factor and it does NOT translate to 320mm just because it has a crop factor of 1.6X. This is a myth!

A lot of Pros use the MkIII because of other reasons; it is not because of the crop factor. Such photographs can spend a few seconds cropping if need be. They use the Mk III because of the 10fps for bird and sports photography.

Another reason being, the company gives them the Mk III and not the Mk III S!

hehe, I expected a post like this from you Ken ;)

1. Its also more expensive and on the Canon side of things, we have the 5DII (which has a pathetic AF system) and the 1Ds MarkIII which is like more than a dream.

2. Well, I know about the reach part and that's the reason why I didn't use the term 'effective focal length' which IMO is a misnomer. All I'm saying that is that you get 'cropped' images SOOC from a crop camera and that makes life easier for fields like birding and wildlife. Now I wouldn't want to sit and crop each image if I had an FF camera.

Pros obviously can afford the Full framers since their bread and butter depends on it. I'm talking about hobbyists like us. For someone like me, the 7D is the perfect camera since it has everything I'd ever need in a camera, and more! Its fast, has an AF system which puts the 5D MarkII to shame.

KrishnenduKes

09-05-2009, 09:35 PM

2. Well, I know about the reach part and that's the reason why I didn't use the term 'effective focal length' which IMO is a misnomer.

Big agreement I am in!

I did not know however about the AF bit on the 5D II! It is not meant for "Fast" photography with just over 3fps. Hence they did not give it an enhanced AF I guess!

Xavier

09-05-2009, 09:38 PM

Big agreement I am in!

I did not know however about the AF bit on the 5D II! It is not meant for "Fast" photography with just over 3fps. Hence they did not give it an enhanced AF I guess!

Yes, but Canon does not have a competitor against the D700 which is a fast full framer. A dream camera would be a 5D MII with the speed of a 7D and priced around $2000 :D

surya@64

09-05-2009, 11:41 PM

50d is the most affordable APSC camera...very good for wildlife...and birding...

7d looks like a good improvement in the AF and metering department....

I have seen 1d mk3 working in the field ....it focus lock is just amazing...and 10fps...is a boon....for wildlife and birding...

The ideal body would be an APSC...adapted to the 1d mk 3 focus system and 10fps...and specs 7d...

I dont think noise should be an issue upto 1000 iso...

I am very happy with 50d. but will be thrilled with 7d performance ....

Let's wait for the field trails...of 7d..

Xavier

09-05-2009, 11:58 PM

hitanshu

09-06-2009, 06:40 AM

I would fully agree with Surya here. I had the privilege and joy to use the 1D MIII at a friend's place yesterday (he is a focussed birder - doesn't have a 50 f/1.8 but has multiple zoom lenses).

That big momma of a camera takes by far the fastest and the bestest pictures I've seen around, with any lens. Same lenses when tried on his backup cam (30D) or on my 500D made me realize the value of that camera :D

I'd honestly be skeptical of the 50D unless budget is not a constraint. At the price the 40D went a month + back (37k), it was the easiest bargain for most people on a budget. Of course, for pros, the micro adjustment of lenses makes sense (I'll be shooting with a 50D friend today) as well as all other things.

For the econoweenies like myself, 40D FTW!

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-06-2009, 11:41 AM

the very obvious is that FF is a bigger rectangle while APS-C is a smaller one.so as per geometry and light theory,the bigger rectangle will be able to accommodate more light than its smaller brother.so end story,cleaner images and great performance.

currently the market is turning towards 4/3s and micro 4/3s for amateur buyers like me who are majorly at the beginning stage of photography.camera companies as we know of OLYMPUS and PANASONIC did surveys.they had set a new market.this market required the same DSLR quality images BUT at very compact levels.you can say that what these companies are targeting is say suppose family people??for example one finds somewhat boring and cubersome to take out their canikon then shoot,then again put in BAG.but now its like take the EP-1 or the GF-1 from your pocket,shoot what you want put in pocket and u are happy.

regarding image quality..first of all will you print??is yes how often??what will be your print size??the point i want to make is that at this stage even the prosumers from FUJI,PANASONIC,OLYMPUS are coming with image quality that is sufficient for average print that is to be put on a wall or anywhere else.i am not saying that prosumers are complete best.but technology now has made it possible for we enthusiasts to have a secondary back up.take for example the FUJI 200 EXR,FUJI S100FS,PANASONIC LX-3,the OLY SP series..when these are used correctly and properly,you can have even beautiful images from these.

FF is still the baap.but then comes hurdles like affordibility first of the camera and then the lenses.as ken has said it doesnt change.but what people think is that for a lesser price i am getting more REACH.one key and famous example is the 100-400L.hugely famous.so on a APS camera you are getting a VIRTUAL 600mm(400 cropped).that what makes APS cameras run out of stores faster than a FF camera.

the current scenario is FF on one side and 4/3s and micro 4/3s on the other.

once you get the hand on a FF you just cant leave it.but its better to think of the finances first.

anvancy

Xavier

09-06-2009, 11:55 AM

But Anvancy, the 4/3rd based sensors IMO lose out a lot on DoF by virtue of being half the size of a full framer. And its not that they're very cheap if compared to APS-C. For 'economic' DSLRs, Pentax and Sony are the best bet since you get the 1.5x crop at quite a bargain.

Oh and Ken, I also thought about this. The thinner DoF of a Full Frame can also be a problem if compared to a crop. Say you want to click a group of 8-10 people standing in fading light. You obviously can't shoot at f/4 since the large aperture and the sensor (dis?)disadvantage would mean that you won't get everyone's faces in sharp focus. So, what are the options? Reduce the aperture value to say, f/11? Or even worse, increase the ISO at the cost of introducing noise?

A crop camera could probably shoot the same picture at a higher shutter speed. What do you guys think?

synn

09-06-2009, 12:01 PM

As per the views of several nature photographers that I follow online, there's an advantage to using a crop body for tele shots. The higher pixel density makes sure that there's more details in the uncropped image than a cropped one obtained from a full frame sensor.

Full frames are undisputed leaders when it comes to low light high ISO performance and Bokeh. Both very desirable to still-life shooters. However, the sensors are expensive to manufacture and the additional info that needs to be recorded results in slower burst speeds.

(Keep in mind though that the max FPS quoted by manufacturers has a caveat. This does not guarantee that all shots are in focus. Actual FPS obtained with all shots in focus is lower).

Nikon toting professionals have a D3X as a main body and a D300 as a secondary body to strike balance.

Xavier

09-06-2009, 12:59 PM

The higher pixel density makes sure that there's more details in the uncropped image than a cropped one obtained from a full frame sensor.

Very valid point this.

KrishnenduKes

09-06-2009, 01:08 PM

A crop camera could probably shoot the same picture at a higher shutter speed. What do you guys think?

If you are taking a group photo, then the guys are in a line. It would not be a problem. And if they are standing one behind another in a file... even an APSC would not be able to get you the DOF that you want. Oh... and remember, if there are too many people, the cropped sensor would not be able to accommodate all of them. You will have to get a wider angle lens or move back!

Xavier

09-06-2009, 01:16 PM

If you are taking a group photo, then the guys are in a line. It would not be a problem. And if they are standing one behind another in a file... even an APSC would not be able to get you the DOF that you want. Oh... and remember, if there are too many people, the cropped sensor would not be able to accommodate all of them. You will have to get a wider angle lens or move back!

Group pictures in a line are boring, I'm talking about the usual semi circular formation. And yes, a crop would struggle too, but not as much as a full frame would.

Xavier

09-06-2009, 01:19 PM

(Keep in mind though that the max FPS quoted by manufacturers has a caveat. This does not guarantee that all shots are in focus. Actual FPS obtained with all shots in focus is lower).

How's this? :D

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/sequence/72x8in.jpg

And its shot on a Canon film SLR (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1nRS/index.htm) :P

synn

09-06-2009, 01:20 PM

Why not just use the DoF preview button and see exactly what DoF you'll get?

For an outside event when there's enough light, one can safely go to F11-F16 at base ISO for such a shot. That should provide enough DoF to cover everyone.

Xavier

09-06-2009, 01:22 PM

Yes, I agree and that's why I had mentioned 'fading light' in my first post about the DoF issue.

synn

09-06-2009, 01:22 PM

How's this? :D

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/sequence/72x8in.jpg

And its shot on a Canon film SLR (http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/eos/EOS-1nRS/index.htm) :P

The Film part explains it. The DSLR's processor has to take care of metering, AF AND the RAW data that comes from the sensor.

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-08-2009, 03:01 PM

But Anvancy, the 4/3rd based sensors IMO lose out a lot on DoF by virtue of being half the size of a full framer. And its not that they're very cheap if compared to APS-C. For 'economic' DSLRs, Pentax and Sony are the best bet since you get the 1.5x crop at quite a bargain.

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasonicgf1_previewsamples19573758/

that is a preview sample gallery of the new panasonic DMC-GF-1.and seeing the 55 photos,DOF bokeh is carried in this camera too.take for example the shot of the man.(second one)look at the bokeh and the sharpness.

certainly 4/3s is now coming to the forefront.what we are getting now is the ability to click pictures OF DSLR STANDARD according to many, right out of our pocket..not out of our lowerpro bag.currently it cant happen that you want a camera not big size,great bokeh+other stuff and end of the day should be cheap.

lastly...there is a thing called "compromise".i have seen many DSLR people cribbing that they get bored taking out those bulky cameras and shooting street photography for example.that is where these 4/3s are gonna shine.

so its mainly now FF vs APS-C vs 4/3s vs the prosumers.

if u think why prosumers then they too are giving IQ in their respective field.so these all in options are running in the race too.examples can be LX-3 G series and the S100fs and the F30fd from fuji.

and there is one other thing.what may be "economic" to you may be a "luxury" to me.and both SONY AND PENTAX make premium cameras.its the availability factor that cribs potential buyers of these companies.

anvancy.

Xavier

09-08-2009, 03:17 PM

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/panasonicgf1_previewsamples19573758/

that is a preview sample gallery of the new panasonic DMC-GF-1.and seeing the 55 photos,DOF bokeh is carried in this camera too.take for example the shot of the man.(second one)look at the bokeh and the sharpness.

certainly 4/3s is now coming to the forefront.what we are getting now is the ability to click pictures OF DSLR STANDARD according to many, right out of our pocket..not out of our lowerpro bag.currently it cant happen that you want a camera not big size,great bokeh+other stuff and end of the day should be cheap.

lastly...there is a thing called "compromise".i have seen many DSLR people cribbing that they get bored taking out those bulky cameras and shooting street photography for example.that is where these 4/3s are gonna shine.

so its mainly now FF vs APS-C vs 4/3s vs the prosumers.

if u think why prosumers then they too are giving IQ in their respective field.so these all in options are running in the race too.examples can be LX-3 G series and the S100fs and the F30fd from fuji.

and there is one other thing.what may be "economic" to you may be a "luxury" to me.and both SONY AND PENTAX make premium cameras.its the availability factor that cribs potential buyers of these companies.

anvancy.

I never said that the 4/3rds don't posses the ability to produce bokeh, I only meant that it's more difficult to achieve bokeh on a 4/3rd sensor based camera because of the relatively small size of the sensor when compared to an APS-C camera (In the same way that a full frame is better with DoF than an APS-C) My point here is :

A Nikon D60 or a Canon 1000D is available in the Indian Market for ~28k with bill and warranty
An Olympus E-420 : ~26k

If it had a larger sensor, it would definitely be fair to say that the Oly is more VFM in this regard, but its not and that's what I'm trying to say. Forget the cost/availability of lenses/flash/grips etc. It's the basic camera body which is not really a viable situation here.

Sony's really heating up the market at the moment with their improved lens range and large no. of bodies across all segments. Only if they could improve the ISO performance.

The 'pocketable' thing, I definitely agree. The major reason why I dislike P&S is the millions of pixles stuffed and cramped in those tiny sensors. But with the Sigma DP1 and the likes, things are looking better now. In fact most pro photographers in the West have a G9/G10/G11 as a backup pocketable camera.

synn

09-08-2009, 03:21 PM

None of the semi- serious photographers I know crib about the size of their cameras. In fact, most of them (like me) hate a camera that's too small because it's detrimental to the feel and ergonomics. If you take up photography, you know what you're getting into. Hell, I carry a massive backpack with my body (Sometimes another one too), lenses and tripod in it when I'm going somewhere where I may shoot something. I wouldn't trade that for a PEN or a GF-1 just because of the "Convenience factor".

I've used a G1 (the first micro 4/3rds). It's well built, the controls feel nice and the image quality at base ISO is neat. However, the EVF is no match for a good mirror and prism setup and the chroma noise at higher ISO's is way too high for someone used to DSLRs. All for a price HIGHER than an entry level DSLR!

Enthusiastic laypeople and journo types may get on board with the new kid on the block, but nobody who's seriously into photography is gonna give up everything that's good about single lens reflex and move to something else because it's smaller. Especially not he ones who have already invested in a system.

There's a reason why back in the day, rangefinders gradually lost popularity once SLRS hit the shelves; even though they were smaller and took images of more or less similar quality. And ironically, Micro 4/3rds would be the new gen's rangefinders, finding themselves a niche market.

APS-Cs are always gonna sell the most and Nothing but full frames would do for the extreme pros. That's just the way it is.

Xavier

09-08-2009, 04:04 PM

However, the EVF is no match for a good mirror and prism setup
+100 to that! Especially for fast action shots.

All for a price HIGHER than an entry level DSLR!

The price of the G1 and the GH1 always makes me lol. Are they trying to compete with the 50Ds and the D90s? :D

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-08-2009, 05:45 PM

i think i can conclude from my side that be happy with what you have and what you can afford.:p

anvancy

synn

09-08-2009, 08:43 PM

Except what you suggest is more expensive and deliver lesser quality than say, a 1000D or a D3000. :p

Deltaone

09-08-2009, 09:00 PM

@anvancy: Er, that is not an example of bokeh is it? Some of the latest pictures posted in the bokeh madness thread have more bokeh than that particular photo.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3409/3592620117_083f505ae2_o.jpg

This for example is a shot of rather poor bokeh. It was taken with the d60 plus the 18-55 kit lens, which still comes to cheaper than any of the 4/3 rds options, bad, but still better. Yes, the micro 4/3 reduces size. But the promise of reduced size plus dlsr like image quality is a long, long ways yet.

The part i really, really don't get about all of this is the price. Bridge-prosumers are at least cheaper than the cheapest dlsrs, point and shoots are very much cheaper than dslrs, so why is something that produces lesser image quality, is far less flexible quite a bit as or more expensive? More to the point, the whole, lens interchangeability thing has just gone out the window. That newest cam only AF's with live-view capable lenses which are more expensive. So what exactly gives?

Yes, size is smaller and in today's world, lesser size = more money. But this is not exactly an area where miniaturization is considered a good thing. There is a reason why dlsrs are bigger and better built than normal point and shoots or prosumers, and it isn't just the size of the sensor in it. There are many more features which come into play and become not just useful but essential the more you use them. It gives you flexibility and adaptability that normal P&S, prosumers, or even these cameras can just not even begin to match.

Yes, it is easier to pull one out of your pocket for ordinary street photography. In that case, why not just get one of the smaller yet quite good P&S ones around. And with the newer gen high resolution sensors, you can even blow them up to a decently large size and hell i've even seen some blown up pics in the odd art gallery. And this has one huge added benefit that none of the micro 4/3 rds have, theyre considerably cheaper er and smaller (so thats two advantages :P).

That said, the whole advantage of the micro 4/3rds over the prosumers and P&S is supposed to be the whole dslr like lens interchangeability. So er, unless you're wearing some cargos with really huge pockets, you ain't really gonna be able to fit anything other than a very thin pancake lens in your pocket are you?

Yes, each has its own advantage. But you can't say that micro 4/3rds are competing with dlsrs. They aren't, unless you're talking about the people who buy dslrs to use the scene modes and have no idea why they have one in the first place.

anvancy-(macro analyst)

09-08-2009, 09:22 PM

agreed deltaone..

though there are people who are looking at the 4/3s and micro 4/3s as their next buy.

time will tell.

anvancy

Xavier

09-09-2009, 06:08 PM

agreed deltaone..

though there are people who are looking at the 4/3s and micro 4/3s as their next buy.

time will tell.

anvancy

Even if time does tell that the 4/3rds and the micro 4/3rds outsell the APS-C's, it won't prove anything.

Xavier

09-27-2009, 08:53 AM

FF cameras have got around 1 stop thinner DoF than croppers and also a 1stop ISO advantage.

Now for lowlight scenes where shutter speed can't be any higher and a larger DoF is needed, a full frame camera would need its ISO to be boosted. You're cancelling the ISO advantage here, for want of DoF. Food for thought?

Daniel Browning

01-03-2010, 09:43 PM

Is Full frame plain better than a Crop camera?

Generally, yes. But it depends on the circumstances.

What about wildlife and birding?

Crop is almost usually superior there, because it has much smaller pixels, allowing for more detail after cropping. Full frame is only better if your lens is long enough that you don't need to crop at all. (Or if the full frame camera had the same pixel size.)

Isn't an APSC camera better than a Full frame in this regard since you have a field of view of 640mm (600mm for Nikonians and Sony users) using a 400mm lens?

The field of view is not really that important, though it helps for composition and manual focus. What matters is the pixel size, and since APS-C has smaller pixels, it is better for wildlife/birding.

Many sports photographers prefer the APSH sensor of the Canon EOS 1D MarkIII not only because of its 10fps frame rate but also because of the 1.3X crop due toh which they spend less time cropping hundreds of images on an event day.

I don't think the time spent electronically cropping photos is the limitation. Nikon solved that by offering a variety of digital crop (or "zoom") options (e.g. 1.2X, 1.5X) and Canon could easily do the same. The real limitation is pixel size. If the 1D3 were full frame, then after cropping 1.3X to get the desired field of view, you would have less than 6 MP.

To answer the question in a more general sense:

Full frame advantages:

Lens availability. (Wider selection)
Allows for thinner DOF if desired (with no disadvantage in deep DOF).
Increased light gathering power if you use thinner DOF
Any lens will have higher contrast (AKA "better colors", "3D effect", or "pop") on Full frame than crop.
More dynamic range
Larger viewfinder.
Using FF lenses as designed (e.g. 17-40 becomes a "super wide angle" instead of a "normal")

On lens availability, for example, there are no wide angle primes for APS-C (EF-S), but there are dozens available on full frame. The 14mm f/2.8 on full frame would be most similar to a 9mm f/1.8 on APS-C, but there is no such lens for APS-C. The 24mm f/1.4 would be similar to a 15mm f/0.9 on APS-C, but again no such lens exists. The widest prime built for APS-C is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, which is equivalent to a 50mm f/2.2 on full frame. By "equivalent", I mean they would have the same field of view, same depth of field, same diffraction, and same light gathering power (light intensity times total area).

Crop has the advantage in areas that benefit from higher pixel density and, most important of all, cost.

Daniel Browning

01-03-2010, 09:43 PM

It is a smaller format It is NOT a 35mm format that ex-film users are used to. Which means that 200mm remains 200mm with a crop factor and it does NOT translate to 320mm just because it has a crop factor of 1.6X. This is a myth!

Agreed, however...

2. APS-C sensor does NOT give you reach.

It does if it has smaller pixels and you can crop more. (Of course, you can only crop more if you achieve critical focus, avoid motion blur, have low noise, etc.) For example, if you crop the 5D2 by 1.6X, you have 8 MP. But if you crop the 50D to the same angle of view, you have 15 MP. Often it's possible to crop the 50D down to 8MP, which is a much tighter angle of view. (Sometimes it's not possible, like when focus is missed or the shot is too noisy.)

Oh and Ken, I also thought about this. The thinner DoF of a Full Frame can also be a problem if compared to a crop.

It's not a problem.

Say you want to click a group of 8-10 people standing in fading light. You obviously can't shoot at f/4 since the large aperture and the sensor (dis?)disadvantage would mean that you won't get everyone's faces in sharp focus. So, what are the options? Reduce the aperture value to say, f/11? Or even worse, increase the ISO at the cost of introducing noise?

A crop camera could probably shoot the same picture at a higher shutter speed. What do you guys think?

No, they are generally the same. The reason is that noise (generally) scales with DOF. For example:

Digicam: 10mm f/2.0 ISO 50 1/60
Four Thirds: 25mm f/5.0 ISO 310 1/60
APS-C (DX): 33mm f/6.7 ISO 560 1/60
Full frame: 50mm f/10.0 ISO 1250 1/60

All of these shots have the exact same angle of view, depth of field, and shutter speed. But the way they differ is in f-number and ISO: the small sensors have a fast f-number and low ISO, while the large sensors have a slow f-number and high ISO. You might think that they differ in noise, but in fact they are very similar. I've done comparison tests to show it:

http://thebrownings.name/images/2009-10-5d2-equivalence/

FF cameras have got around 1 stop thinner DoF than croppers and also a 1stop ISO advantage.

Now for lowlight scenes where shutter speed can't be any higher and a larger DoF is needed, a full frame camera would need its ISO to be boosted. You're cancelling the ISO advantage here, for want of DoF. Food for thought?

Aha, I didn't see this post until after I wrote the above. You are correct.